|
From: Ning L. <nin...@gm...> - 2008-03-31 16:06:46
|
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Ning Li <nin...@gm...> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Doug Cutting <cu...@ap...> wrote: > > - Should we have a single propagator per host, instead of per node? > > That would conserve calls to the master, and a single propagation thread > > would throttle things, so that indexing doesn't overwhelm search > > performance. OTOH, we might sometimes want to propagate changes faster > > than a single thread can. But that's probably better dealt with > > explicitly rather than having a thread per node... > > Agree. The part needs to be optimized - e.g. currently the synchronizer > retrieves one doc at a time after processing the log. It is a single propagator per host. But the question is, when should the synchronizer be started? Ning |